Author Topic: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)  (Read 2284 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Talking Donkey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1485
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« on: Sun Jul 08, 2012 - 18:46:57 »
This message is for Protestants !

Protestants should know why so many Christians died during the reformation so that we can have this truth about the bread and grape juice we use in the Lord's supper.

     The Vatican teaches Catholics that when the catholic priest blesses the Lord's supper, the wine in the cup is turned into the real blood and the bread is turned into the flesh of our Savior.  That is why they teach that it is "OK" to worship the transformed bread and wine as God (pure idolatry).  At that moment, both elements (they teach) stop being wine and bread.  The technical term is called "transubstantiation".   That is a term coined during the dark ages when people actually thought that everything was made up of two things, substance and accidents.  Accidents were the physical properties like color, texture and taste.

Rome taught that during mass, the bread and wine chanced substance but kept the accidents.  That is why it is called transubstantiation.

In the catholic mind, what they are eating is the actual physical blood and physical flesh of Jesus.  The Catholic Encyclopedia, under the term "co-substantiation", declares a heretic anyone that teaches that the bread and wine continue to be bread and wine after it is blessed during the Lord's supper.  Meaning that both substances are together... according to Rome that is heresy.  That statement declared both Jesus and Paul heretics based on what is written in Mat 26:29; John 13:18;  Acts 2:42,46; Acts 20:7;11; 1Co 5:7-8; 1Co 10:16-17; 1Co 11:26-29.  In those verses we see Jesus declaring the wine "the fruit of the vine" after it was blessed.  He did not calls the fruit of the vine blood in the Bible.  And Paul always referred to the blessed bread as bread after it was blessed, in 1Cor 10:16.   

     The issue of the transubstantiation was by far the main point of disagreement during the reformation.  Tens of thousands died during that time for daring to preach the truth, that the wine and the bread are symbols.  That blasphemous sacrifice of the mass (Heb 6:6), represented by what is inside the golden cup [the chalice], is offered not only to God, but also to Mary, the saints and for dead people, to get them out of purgatory.  When they offer it to those other than God, that is spiritual fornication.  This is a form of adultery committed against God.

Peace

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #1 on: Sun Jul 08, 2012 - 19:00:18 »
I don't do any sort of stantiation.

It's cracker and grape juice/wine, just like the Passover.

It represents the death of Christ, and always had (apparently), if we can read from Jesus' statements back into the earlier practice. At no time either before Jesus or since did any changing occur.

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #2 on: Sun Jul 08, 2012 - 19:11:11 »
QUOTED:

This message is for Protestants !


.............you should have posted this on the Protestant Forum, or the Protestant Safe Hous Forum yes?................

(just saying........putting it here will not insure "protestans" will be the only who comment........maybe a Mod will move if for ya if you ask.

 ::pondering:: ::shrug::

Offline afaithfulone4u

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #3 on: Sun Jul 08, 2012 - 19:39:20 »
This message is for Protestants !

Protestants should know why so many Christians died during the reformation so that we can have this truth about the bread and grape juice we use in the Lord's supper.

     The Vatican teaches Catholics that when the catholic priest blesses the Lord's supper, the wine in the cup is turned into the real blood and the bread is turned into the flesh of our Savior.  That is why they teach that it is "OK" to worship the transformed bread and wine as God (pure idolatry).  At that moment, both elements (they teach) stop being wine and bread.  The technical term is called "transubstantiation".   That is a term coined during the dark ages when people actually thought that everything was made up of two things, substance and accidents.  Accidents were the physical properties like color, texture and taste.

Rome taught that during mass, the bread and wine chanced substance but kept the accidents.  That is why it is called transubstantiation.

In the catholic mind, what they are eating is the actual physical blood and physical flesh of Jesus.  The Catholic Encyclopedia, under the term "co-substantiation", declares a heretic anyone that teaches that the bread and wine continue to be bread and wine after it is blessed during the Lord's supper.  Meaning that both substances are together... according to Rome that is heresy.  That statement declared both Jesus and Paul heretics based on what is written in Mat 26:29; John 13:18;  Acts 2:42,46; Acts 20:7;11; 1Co 5:7-8; 1Co 10:16-17; 1Co 11:26-29.  In those verses we see Jesus declaring the wine "the fruit of the vine" after it was blessed.  He did not calls the fruit of the vine blood in the Bible.  And Paul always referred to the blessed bread as bread after it was blessed, in 1Cor 10:16.  

     The issue of the transubstantiation was by far the main point of disagreement during the reformation.  Tens of thousands died during that time for daring to preach the truth, that the wine and the bread are symbols.  That blasphemous sacrifice of the mass (Heb 6:6), represented by what is inside the golden cup [the chalice], is offered not only to God, but also to Mary, the saints and for dead people, to get them out of purgatory.  When they offer it to those other than God, that is spiritual fornication.  This is a form of adultery committed against God.

Peace


Do this in REMEMBRANCE of ME says Jesus.
When Jesus said eat my flesh and drink my blood many of them thought he was out of his mind and that he literally meant to eat his flesh, but if that were the case, the disciples would have ate his flesh once he died on the cross. Jesus said it, but the meaning was not for those who thought they were wise, for the understanding was not of the carnal sense, but the spiritual sense. Just like the Word has two different understandings going on one that all eyes can see and one for whom have obtained their spiritual eyes.
 God is looking for those who seek, ask and keep knocking for understanding not the casual reader. Same with what they thought Jesus was asking them to do, to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood and they didn't care to find out anything more, they were out of here.
 God gets rid of the riff raff this way, meaning people who want Him to prove Himself before someone will come to Him.
Jesus being the Word and the Bread of life(Word of life) was BROKEN on the cross for us. Broken as in, God forsook His OWN Word and BROKE IT on the cross for us to separate His 10 commandments from the added 613 that had been added for not keeping the 10. Then He resurrected His new covenant Word on the 3rd day condensing the 10 to 2 which if done correctly, fulfill all 10 of the law that is in the "STONE" the Rock that the builders rejected. His blood is symbolic of the new covenant law as God always signs His covenants with blood.
 Just as the Passover Lamb was to be roasted and eaten before the morning sun rise, we are to feed on the Word of God who is our Passover Lamb, he is also the door and the cross was the post that the blood was shed on just as the Hebrew children had to put the blood of their lamb over the door post of the home to be passed over when the death angel passed by. Notice they had to purchase a lamb that would completely fill their household with no meat left over till morning. Jesus arose on the Sabbath for he is the Sabbath rest which is the 7th day or millinial 1,000yrs rest of the earth.  Jesus is the WORD OF GOD. All of the Bible is God's Word!! He is the way the truth and the life and no one can come to the Father without accepting His Word.

When we partake of the bread and wine(take communion) when coming together to FEED ON THE WORD and remember our covenant with God through Christ's shed blood, we are to spiritually DISCERN that we are part of his HOLY BODY and to wait for one another as in unity of ONE BODY not as just a picnic, wine testers or free samples. We are to have the mind that we all are coming together AS HIS BODY and if ANY needs to repent of something such as a sin or unforgiveness it would be better if they did not eat with the others until they take care of those things otherwise they are saying they are part of his holy body but they know they have not been walking in holiness. That is why many in the church are sickly or even pass on for they are not acknowledging their oneness with the other members and as part of Christ's body such as hands, feet etc.....
 Jesus is the Bread of life, meaning we are to feed upon him. Is he not the Word? Is not his blood the covenant between believers and God?
You can eat a whole loaf of bread or crackers and drink till you fall on your face. If you are not FULL OF THE WORD OF GOD HE WILL NOT RECOGNIZE YOU ARE PART OF HIS!! BODY.

1 Cor 11:24-34

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
KJV
« Last Edit: Mon Jul 09, 2012 - 08:31:39 by afaithfulone4u »

Offline Tyler

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Manna: 37
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #4 on: Sun Jul 08, 2012 - 20:44:16 »
Anyone like to explain "Protestant"? And, where can I find your definition in the New Testament?

Interesting that the Presbyterian church just missed by a few votes of incorporating same sex marriage into their
"Protestant church" by-laws.
Most Protestant churches can trace their doctrine back to "The Westminster Confession of Faith."
You may want to "examine" your Protestant faith before entering Scripture. (2 Corinthians 13:5).

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #4 on: Sun Jul 08, 2012 - 20:44:16 »



HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #5 on: Sun Jul 08, 2012 - 20:56:24 »
Anyone like to explain "Protestant"? And, where can I find your definition in the New Testament?

Interesting that the Presbyterian church just missed by a few votes of incorporating same sex marriage into their
"Protestant church" by-laws.
Most Protestant churches can trace their doctrine back to "The Westminster Confession of Faith."
You may want to "examine" your Protestant faith before entering Scripture. (2 Corinthians 13:5).
Language is simply a tool to convey meaning. If you understand the meaning, the language is fine.

Lively Stone

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #6 on: Sun Jul 08, 2012 - 22:45:13 »
After explaining what the cup represented, Jesus went right back to describing it as wine!

Matthew 26:29
But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #7 on: Mon Jul 09, 2012 - 05:55:16 »
A couple of random thoughts here.........

1)  Grape juice and grape wine are both from "the fruit of the vine."  One is ferminted, one is not.  There is unferminted wine.

2)  Jesus said He would not partake.............................until He returned again.........we are to strive to live like Him.......

 ::pondering::
 ::headscratch::
 ::shrug::

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16845
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #8 on: Mon Jul 09, 2012 - 07:03:19 »
I don't do any sort of stantiation.

It's cracker and grape juice/wine, just like the Passover.

It represents the death of Christ, and always had (apparently), if we can read from Jesus' statements back into the earlier practice. At no time either before Jesus or since did any changing occur.
While I do not hold to either transsubstiation or consubstantiation, I think going the "only symbolic" route is too far the other way.

The reason I cannot support Trans- or Con- is that Jesus was a Jewish male who had to uphold the Mosaic strictures to remain qualified as our sacrifice.  For him to ACTUALLY advocate that anyone physically ingest blood or un-kosher meat was a sin under that code. To do so would mean he could no longer be our sacrifice.

BUT - this was Passover.  The tradion was/is to consider yourself physically in Egypt and coming out with Moses as you partake of the table and ceremony.

In the same way we consider ourselves coming out of Egypt as we remember that great deliverance, we are to remember HIM in His death.  We partake of his body and blood by placing ourselves on that cross, realizing it is US who deserved to be there.

So rather than just a physical symbol, it is a spiritual identification. (one of the rare instances of that in Judaism)

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16845
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #9 on: Mon Jul 09, 2012 - 07:13:04 »
A couple of random thoughts here.........

1)  Grape juice and grape wine are both from "the fruit of the vine."  One is ferminted, one is not.  There is unferminted wine.
Some make a doctrinal point on the use of that phrase thinking it means unfermentied.  Actually the Gospel writers and Paul use that because of the common use of the standard blessing over all things grape:

Blessed are You O Lord Our God King of the world who creates the fruit of the vine.

Quote
2)  Jesus said He would not partake.............................until He returned again.........we are to strive to live like Him.......

Actually that was a Nazirite vow, which is ended with death. He did not say "until I return," rather "until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Matt 26.29b)  One could argue that the Father's kingcom was established at His resurrection.

Offline afaithfulone4u

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #10 on: Mon Jul 09, 2012 - 09:09:05 »
A couple of random thoughts here.........

1)  Grape juice and grape wine are both from "the fruit of the vine."  One is ferminted, one is not.  There is unferminted wine.
Some make a doctrinal point on the use of that phrase thinking it means unfermentied.  Actually the Gospel writers and Paul use that because of the common use of the standard blessing over all things grape:

Blessed are You O Lord Our God King of the world who creates the fruit of the vine.

Quote
2)  Jesus said He would not partake.............................until He returned again.........we are to strive to live like Him.......

Actually that was a Nazirite vow, which is ended with death. He did not say "until I return," rather "until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Matt 26.29b)  One could argue that the Father's kingcom was established at His resurrection.


His kingdom WAS established at his resurrection for when the sinner on his RIGHT asked him to remember him when he came into his kingdom Jesus said: TO DAY! you shall be with me in Paradise, not meaning ascending up physically to heaven, but spiritually to the bosom of Abraham, for Jesus did not ascend physically that day but spiritually, it was 40 days later before he physically went to heaven ascending up.
The earth and all belongs to God, it is only the people who have sold themselves to do the devils bidding. So at Jesus' time and even now, the world is overgrown with weeds and tares being the devils children that the devil only seems to have control of the earth.
 But in reality, that is only because Christ's body has been sleeping and the enemy has come and planted his seed(words)tares among God's seed(His Word) the wheat. Many do not take God at His Word and are like the Hebrew who could not make it to their promised land because they did not trust God to believe IN HIS WORD, they looked at the GIANTS, BULLIES, WEALTHY, POWERFUL  ungodly of men in the earth and thought they were just little grashoppers in the eyes of the devils spawn of Giants who lord over men by corruption, bribes, manipulation,false witness,judges in their pockets, crafty lawyers to help them succeed by their EVIL DEEDS.

 SPEAK WHAT GOD SAYS ABOUT YOU AND WHIP OUT THAT sWORD OF THE SPIRIT AND CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH "IT IS WRITTEN, HE WHO IS IN ME, IS GREATER THAN HE WHO IS IN THE WORLD!!"

The body of Christ better RISE UP from their sleep because UNTIL THE BODY RISES UP, THE HEAD IS GOING TO REST SITTING ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD FOR HE CAN NOT RISE UP TILL THE BODY COMES INTO IT'S FULLNESS OF CHRIST/WORD SO IT CAN HOLD UP THE HEAD BY EXALTING THE WORD IN THIS WORLD
The body of Christ must rise up  and know their GOD IS MIGHTY IN THE PULLING DOWN OF STRONG HOLDS. Allow the Spirit to work in you and raise up your character in Christ so that GOD CAN PUT YOU IN ONE OF HIS MANY MANSIONS to take back and conquer the unclean spirits of men by bringing GOD'S 10 COMMANDMENTS CONDENSED TO 2 WHICH COMPLETE ALL 10 WHEN DONE CORRECTLY BACK INTO THE SCHOOLS, HOME, FAMILY, CHILDREN, TOWN COUNTRY.... for only HE who retrains evil shall be taken out of the way when ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16845
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #11 on: Mon Jul 09, 2012 - 09:15:25 »
His kingdom WAS established at his resurrection for when the sinner on his RIGHT asked him to remember him when he came into his kingdom Jesus said: TO DAY! you shall be with me in Paradise, not meaning ascending up physically to heaven, but spiritually to the bosom of Abraham, for Jesus did not ascend physically that day but spiritually, it was 40 days later before he physically went to heaven ascending up.
Don't get hung up on the day.  The text is not clear enough for you to make that statement.  Remember I told you that there was no punctuation in the original?  That verse can equally be rendered either way:

Luke 23.43 And he said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #12 on: Mon Jul 09, 2012 - 11:13:34 »
I don't do any sort of stantiation.

It's cracker and grape juice/wine, just like the Passover.

It represents the death of Christ, and always had (apparently), if we can read from Jesus' statements back into the earlier practice. At no time either before Jesus or since did any changing occur.
While I do not hold to either transsubstiation or consubstantiation, I think going the "only symbolic" route is too far the other way.

The reason I cannot support Trans- or Con- is that Jesus was a Jewish male who had to uphold the Mosaic strictures to remain qualified as our sacrifice.  For him to ACTUALLY advocate that anyone physically ingest blood or un-kosher meat was a sin under that code. To do so would mean he could no longer be our sacrifice.

BUT - this was Passover.  The tradion was/is to consider yourself physically in Egypt and coming out with Moses as you partake of the table and ceremony.

In the same way we consider ourselves coming out of Egypt as we remember that great deliverance, we are to remember HIM in His death.  We partake of his body and blood by placing ourselves on that cross, realizing it is US who deserved to be there.

So rather than just a physical symbol, it is a spiritual identification. (one of the rare instances of that in Judaism)
My comments were in the context of cons or trans. I don't accept either. Do we remember, do we place ourselves in the deliverance? Surely. Do we accept that His death is our death? Can we identify that His blood becomes our Life? Can we identify that His body lived a life expended for us? Can we accept His body as our incarnation and way of life?

Of course.

But they are still symbols - things that stand for others; things that adhere deeper meaning than their flat physical makeup. There are no changes of substance.
« Last Edit: Mon Jul 09, 2012 - 14:30:58 by HRoberson »

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30932
  • Manna: 538
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #13 on: Tue Jul 10, 2012 - 18:19:31 »
Do this in rememberance of me. The first time He did this for us, at the last supper, was before His death, so how could it possibly be his blood and his body? Crazy.Another wrong and actually very dangerous belief.
Its for remembering what he did for us.

Offline kensington

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6816
  • Manna: 356
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #14 on: Tue Jul 10, 2012 - 21:57:27 »
Do this in rememberance of me. The first time He did this for us, at the last supper, was before His death, so how could it possibly be his blood and his body? Crazy.Another wrong and actually very dangerous belief.
Its for remembering what he did for us.

This is true... He had not yet given his body and blood for us, so the sacrifice had not yet been made. He was teaching us as to what was to happen, and that we should not forget it, but to remember it in this solemn symbolic ceremony.

No priest/man has every proven that it becomes actual flesh and blood. Nor could any man actually perform such a thing. Only God could do it, but why would He even want to turn us into cannibals in such a manner?  Jesus did not die to become our dinner, He died to save our souls. His blood covers our sins from the cross,

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16845
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #15 on: Wed Jul 11, 2012 - 07:06:14 »
No priest/man has every proven that it becomes actual flesh and blood. Nor could any man actually perform such a thing. Only God could do it, but why would He even want to turn us into cannibals in such a manner?  Jesus did not die to become our dinner, He died to save our souls. His blood covers our sins from the cross,
I had a friend in college who was in a catholic charismatic group on campus.  One time, during a time of family crisis, she prayed and prayed for God to show her His love and support of her.  The next time she took communion she tasted raw flesh and fresh blood.

Whether she actually ingested blood and meat is unknown.  But God did meet her in a way she could understand.

Offline Tyler

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Manna: 37
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #16 on: Wed Jul 11, 2012 - 10:36:35 »
Hello DaveW

Were there not four cups on the table of the Passover Supper?
In the gospel account only two of the seder cups are mentioned.
The first and the third am I correct?

Was not the first cup special because it consecrated the entire Passover ritual that followed?
But according to the Mishnah the third cup was the most significant as I recall.

The third cup had two names: the "cup of blessing," because it came after the blessing or grace
after meals, and the "cup of redemption," because it represented the blood of the Paschal Lamb.
Was it this cup that Jesus said, "This is my blood of the new covenant"? (Matthew 26:28).
Paul mentions this "cup" in 1 Corinthians 10:16.
We know these words were not spoken at Passover in a Jewish household.

I am interested in the fourth cup on the table at the Passover.
My reasoning: The third cup commemorates the verse in Exodus 6:6b:
"I will redeem you with a stretched out arm." This third cup then is the "cup of redemption."

The fourth cup on the table of the ancient Jew represents the coming of Elijah or "Elijah's cup."
This cup was filled at the beginning of the Seder. "Will Elijah come and drink from the cup" they ask.
"May God send the Messiah, heralded by the prophet Elijah, to vanquish all our enemies and set up His Kingdom of peace"?

Noting Luke 22:20 we read that it was "AFTER suppe, saying, This IS the new testament in my blood which is shed for you."
Why would this cup not be the fourth cup, or the cup of Elijah?
Did not the ancient Jew lift the fourth cup at the end of the Passover seder commemorating the verse in Exodus 6:7: "And I will take you to me for a people"?

Did not the Passover seder come to a close with the fourth cup? ("After supper")
In Temple times the eating of the lamb was the last to be eaten.
After this, no one was to have any more food or drink other than the third and forth cups of wine.
To me, this emphasizes verses Luke 20:22-24, and verse 25 of Mark 14: "And he said unto them. This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many, Verily I say unto YOU (apostles seated at the Passover), I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

Luke says in Acts 1:3 that Jesus "showed himself alive after his Passion by many infallible proofs, being seen by them forty days, and speaking  of things pertaining to the kingdom of God."
Are we to assume that He did not drink of the fruit of the vine in these "forty days"?
Was it not in this time frame that He ate with the the disciples in John 21 and Luke 24:43?
His Kingdom came, and He is NOW seated at the right hand of the Father. (Acts 2:34, 7:55; Ps. 103:19).

The Lord's Supper is a memorial service. "This do in remembrance of me."
To be observed by those who love and honor Him on the "first day of the week" (Acts 20:7).
He promised to be there..."For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20)

Appreciate your thoughts on the "fourth cup."




« Last Edit: Wed Jul 11, 2012 - 11:10:47 by Tyler »

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16845
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #17 on: Wed Jul 11, 2012 - 12:17:24 »
The fourth cup is the Cup of Acceptance "Nirtzah."  The cups are for 4 promises in Exodus 6:6-7:

(1) "I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians"
(2) "I will deliver you from slavery to them"
(3) "I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment"
(4) "I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God"

The fourth cup is NOT the cup of Elijah.  That cup is poured before the seder starts but is not drunk. It is poured ONLY at the empty seat left for Elijah.

The fourth cup ends the Seder. It is after the songs of Praise (Hallel) and the Grace after Meals (Birkat haMazon)


BTW - keep a lookout later this year or just after New Year for my Messianic Passover Haggadah to be available on the E-reader market.

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #18 on: Wed Jul 11, 2012 - 16:17:37 »
uh, Tyler, do you consider yourself to be a Protestant?

just wondering.............

Offline Tyler

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Manna: 37
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #19 on: Wed Jul 11, 2012 - 17:03:30 »
Thanks DaveW

I have a book written by Ceil and Moishe Rosen "Christ In The Passover." Written in 1978, The Moody Bible Institute. "Ceil Rosen, a Jew who has found Jesus as her Messiah and Lord, is a free-lance writer. Her husband, Moishe, is founder and director of Jews for Jesus." (Introduction)

She write that the "Haggadah is based on ancient writings in the Mishnah about Passover and
did not emerge until the thirteenth century as a complete and separate book." (P. 72)

Mrs. Rosen say (P. 86) the fourth cup is the cup of acceptance. Others prefer to call it the cup of Elijah.
She goes on to say, there is merit to both titles, for Elijah will yet come to herald the redemption that will be complete only when Israel fufill's God' entire plan; that is when Israel recognizes and proclaims the Messiah (Zechariah 12:10), she will truly be the people of God, as foretold in Jeremiah 32:38-40.
And now, at last, with the drinking of the forth cup, the seder is drawing to a close. "Next Year Jerusalem."

I see the Fourth cup as the one Jesus uses "after supper."
Why? He is instituting the New Covenant....He would not incorporate any of the Old. (Hebrews 9:17).
Of course, I know that I am in the minority...yet Luke writes, "after supper, saying, This is the cup of the new covenant verse 20 of Luke 22.
Note verse 17, is this not the first cup?

The bread that He broke for the "bitter sop" was not the bread of which He said, "This is my body" (Matthew 26:26b). This came later at the end of the meal for the Scripture says, "He took the bread AFTER He first gave thanks at the end of the meal; then He broke it and gave it to them saying "This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19; cf 1 Corinthians 11:24).

This instituted a new memorial for after supper of the Paschal Lamb no other food was to be eaten.
He was teaching here that the lamb would no longer have the same significance. It was the memorial of physical, historical redemption soon to come. He was about to become the better sacrifice, to die once, for all
(Hebrews 9:14-15, 23-26).
 
I like to keep in mind that the first full record that we have of the Haggadah is contained in a section of an old prayer book called seder, or siddur, which was edited in the ninth century by Rab Amram ben Sheshnah. Men did not have the Haggadah completely until the thirteenth century and an "edited" version at that.
The Gospel writers have it correct, Christians today do not know the specific regulations for the celebration of the anniversary of redemption and do not understand the flow or proceedings of the Supper.



Offline Tyler

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Manna: 37
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #20 on: Wed Jul 11, 2012 - 17:14:26 »
p.rehbein:  "Tyler, do you consider yourself to be a Protestant?

just wondering............."

No sir, I do not consider myself to be a "Protestant" which has its roots in Martin Luther's "Sola Fide."
I hope that you do not hold that against me... (" ") I enjoy your post's.

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #21 on: Wed Jul 11, 2012 - 19:07:20 »
I certainly will not hold it against you..........
 ::smile::
that being said however this is the Protestant Safe House.  Non Protestants are not to post here........it isn't a theological debate forum, it's a Safe Haven for fellow Protestants to fellowship with one another without having to debate their beliefs/theology with non-Protestant...........It isn't ment to be the Theology Forum.

Just saying Brother...........

 ::tippinghat::

Offline Tyler

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Manna: 37
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #22 on: Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 06:12:53 »
Sorry, I see that I am in the wrong pew again.....
I thought the "Lord's Supper" was for sinner's like me...

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16845
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #23 on: Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 06:46:05 »
The most common definition of a Protestant is "anything not Catholic (RCC)."

I believe Ms Rosen was mistaken in her statement about the Haggadah appearing in the 13 century.  Perhaps she was refering ONLY to the current version.  Most of it is described in the Babylonian Talmud which was published circa 500 ad. Some descriptions (included in the current version) go back to the 1st century bc. Specifically, Hillel's instructions.

The custom of the 3 matzot being lifted and called a "unity" is likely an addition from James, the brother of the Lord, congregational leader of Jerusalem, and noted Torah scholar.

The meal occurs between the 2nd and 3rd cups so the cup IMMEDIATLY "after supper" would be the 3rd.  As far as we can tell that has not changed at all in the last 2000 years.

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16845
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #24 on: Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 06:47:38 »
Sorry, I see that I am in the wrong pew again.....
I thought the "Lord's Supper" was for sinner's like me...
Actually it is only for believers.  A non-believer (sinner) taking it is dangerous indeed.

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #25 on: Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 07:29:14 »
Brother Tyler, pay no attention to me.   ::smile::

Safe House does not mean Safe House............or some such........it is stated that as long as those who are not Protestant are respectful in their comments and do not cause problems, then they are welcome to post here...............hey, works for me.

 ::smile::

God bless you and yours

Offline fenton

  • Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Manna: 83
  • Gender: Male
  • Prayer Warrior
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #26 on: Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 07:55:41 »
The most common definition of a Protestant is "anything not Catholic (RCC)."

 ???  ???

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #27 on: Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 08:01:36 »
The most common definition of a Protestant is "anything not Catholic (RCC)."

 ???  ???


Fenton, I believe what DaveW meant to say is that the "most common Catholic" definition of protestant is............but I don't want to speak for him....

 ::smile::

Offline Tyler

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Manna: 37
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #28 on: Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 08:21:41 »


Tyler: I thought the "Lord's Supper" was for sinner's like me..
DaveW: Actually it is only for believers.  A non-believer (sinner) taking it is dangerous indeed.

Dave, I have been asked many times if a sinner should take of the Lord's Supper?
I say "go ahead and join the crowd" if Jesus did not eat with sinners He spent many a meal by Himself.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:28..Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and
drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
Paul goes on to say that if we judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

Think of that! The God of the universe, Creator and Sustainer of all life informs me, a sinner, to judge myself. I come up short every time! This is the reason for the Cross..Amen!

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16845
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #29 on: Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 08:24:46 »
No - that was the common definition for both protestants and catholics.

Now many included the Eastern churches in a more general use of "catholic" but that was not universal.

I remember it caused quite a stir when a professor at Calvin College suggested that pentecostals be listed as other than protestant, that they were something else. (1970s)  No one could comprehend anything other than catholic, protestant or pagan/cult.  

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #30 on: Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 09:11:23 »
No - that was the common definition for both protestants and catholics.

Now many included the Eastern churches in a more general use of "catholic" but that was not universal.

I remember it caused quite a stir when a professor at Calvin College suggested that pentecostals be listed as other than protestant, that they were something else. (1970s)  No one could comprehend anything other than catholic, protestant or pagan/cult.  


Okdokie...........I see you are specifying "was" the common definition.........'cause I can assure you that for the last 60 years or so, that is not the most common definition among Protestants in my opinion.

 ::smile::

 I have never heard a Morman profess to being of the Protestant faith, for that matter, I haven't heard a Jehova's Witness profess that either.  Now, they may well have, but I have never heard it..................however, I have often heard Catholics, and even read some posts here, who state that anyone not of the Catholic Church is considered Protestant........

 ::pondering:: ::frown:: not in my opinion though
 ::tippinghat::

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16845
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #31 on: Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 10:01:41 »
The protestants I grew up with considered Mormons and JW to be in the cult/pagan category.  In fact my dad considered catholics to be in the cult/pagan category too.  "...the falsest of false religions." (his exact words)

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #32 on: Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 11:02:27 »
The protestants I grew up with considered Mormons and JW to be in the cult/pagan category.  In fact my dad considered catholics to be in the cult/pagan category too.  "...the falsest of false religions." (his exact words)


just speaking for myself here, and not anyone else........as for the Mormans and JW's, I just don't consider them to be Protestant.......now as for the Catholics, or any other denomination/Church, my belief is if they profess the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, and that He gave His life on Calvary's cross to provide God's salvation plan for them, and they accept Him as their Saviour, then I will extend the hand of Christian fellowship to them.

I have never been "big" on labeling folks and/or their belief as "pagan" or whatever.  I am not their judge, nor do I wish to be, there is One who will Judge all!


Offline Gerhard Ebersöhn

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1560
  • Manna: 13
Re: The Lord's Supper (bread and fruit of the vine)
« Reply #33 on: Mon Feb 10, 2014 - 14:35:52 »
A couple of random thoughts here.........

1)  Grape juice and grape wine are both from "the fruit of the vine."  One is ferminted, one is not.  There is unferminted wine.
Some make a doctrinal point on the use of that phrase thinking it means unfermentied.  Actually the Gospel writers and Paul use that because of the common use of the standard blessing over all things grape:

Blessed are You O Lord Our God King of the world who creates the fruit of the vine.

Quote
2)  Jesus said He would not partake.............................until He returned again.........we are to strive to live like Him.......

Actually that was a Nazirite vow, which is ended with death. He did not say "until I return," rather "until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Matt 26.29b)  One could argue that the Father's kingcom was established at His resurrection.